Apparently it was ad-libbed. Classic - I need to rent it again.
Posted on 04/21/2006 2:11:41 PM PDT by Unam Sanctam
...
Although he is known for his tolerant, humane views, he is a surprisingly harsh critic of homosexuality. If you are a Buddhist, he says, it is wrong. "Full stop.
No way round it.
"A gay couple came to see me, seeking my support and blessing. I had to explain our teachings. Another lady introduced another woman as her wife - astonishing. It is the same with a husband and wife using certain sexual practices. Using the other two holes is wrong."
At this point, he looks across at his interpreter - who seems mainly redundant - to check that he has been using the right English words to discuss this delicate matter. The interpreter gives a barely perceptible nod.
"A Western friend asked me what harm could there be between consenting adults having oral sex, if they enjoyed it," the Dalai Lama continues, warming to his theme. "But the purpose of sex is reproduction, according to Buddhism. The other holes don't create life. I don't mind - but I can't condone this way of life."
...
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Ooo! You're still looking for blood and broken teeth on the floor, aren't you? Your ego's not keeping your id sufficiently tamped down. Your superego must be distracted.
Calpernia, I would think that your definition of the ego as moral living is something quite different than Dr. Freud's original definition of the ego.
And if you define the ego as something that adapts into (how very evolutionary!) a 'superego'; a development described in the Old Testament where people 'lived in sin' and became progressively more moral over time, why then your original assertion that: Relgions create a super ego must be an assertion of a positive nature.
Unless remaining in sin is preferable. Then your assertion would not be positive.
And any google search will find, the ol' guy is celibate; and he's wondered at times, about having a woman.
Actually, this sounds EXACTLY like Catholic teaching. His reasoning goes to the original logical and theological underpinnings of this within the Catholic Church as well.
I completely agree with his outlook on our society as well; WE ARE too self absorbed, and many of these "rights" movements within our society are a sorry sign of it.
History supports that theory.
Neither will that gerbil without a Habitrail...
Depends on the Buddhist. (Some are really expert in martial arts...)
“Buddha wasn't a Christian, but Jesus would have made a good Buddhist.”
Apparently it was ad-libbed. Classic - I need to rent it again.
I need to rent it again.Own it.
<< 'Westerners are too self-absorbed' - dalai lama >>
What's a dali lama when it's not First Class, Five Starring and gold Rolex good timing it around the planet in its Gucci boots?
A pontificating pagan-heathen by any other name.
Buddhism, like science, doesn't answer questions about God.
siun: So, in the golden time before anyone dreamed up a religion, the super-ego did not exist?
In other words, there was a time when no religion existed, but then man 'dreamed' it up. Okay---please explain how man 'dreamed' up religion. More importantly, please explain where man got the 'idea' of religion when religion didn't exist, which means by extension, that man knew absoutely nothing about it.
That's my question. Calpernia apparently dealt with that in Post 44.
That's when I found that there were alternates to Freud's definitions for id, ego and superego.
>>>I would think that your definition of the ego as moral living is something quite different than Dr. Freud's original definition of the ego.
No, the definitions are the same. I a double major in psychology and there are endless texts on structural personality.
>>>>And if you define the ego as something that adapts into (how very evolutionary!) a 'superego'
I wouldn't use adapts. I would use conditioning. Moral living has to be learned.
>>>>>a development described in the Old Testament where people 'lived in sin' and became progressively more moral over time, why then your original assertion that: Relgions create a super ego must be an assertion of a positive nature.
The people described in the Old Testament lived in sin (id) wasn't a development. People were living in sin. The introduction to people of God and His miracles are what scared people into turning away from sin. This was the first steps to Ego.
>>>>Unless remaining in sin is preferable. Then your assertion would not be positive.
Why is that? You prefer sin?
Actually no, siunevada. LindyKim was quoting you. I was referring to religion as being the platform of the superego. I called you on the same quote LindyKim is calling you on in post 36.
Bill Murray is a very underrated comedic actor, the guy has been in some turkeys, but he still makes them at least watchable.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.